February 24, 2008

Special Report: Secret Service Denies Obama Security Lapse While MSM Plays Dumb and NBC Plays Dumber; Plus, A Reminder of Who Controls the SS

(Updates below - Update I: NYT matches AP's obliviousness; Update II: In latest article by Star-Telegram, "former head of the FBI in Dallas who was in charge
of the agency's investigation of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing" slams Service Service's actions at rally.)

On Thursday, I wrote about a frightening lapse in security at Wednesday's Obama rally in Dallas. Reporter Jack Douglas Jr. of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram broke the story and has since written a follow-up, to which he updated yesterday. I noted on Thursday that the mainstream media (with the exception of UPI) had completely ignored this story, which has largely continued, with the Associated Press going so far as to publish an article Friday titled "Many Blacks Worry About Obama's Safety" yet without referencing in the piece what had occurred at Wednesday's Dallas rally.Friday's broadcast of NBC Nightly News did mention an alleged breach of security, but the report - a shoddy piece of journalism driven solely by the Secret Service's official denial - was summarily tacked on to the end of a separate report on the Obama campaign. Additionally, in comments left on Douglas' articles on the Star-Telegram's website (one of which he published in his follow-up) and other sites around the web (including this one), people have provided firsthand accounts of the same type of lax security at Obama rallies throughout the country (yes, they need to be corroborated, but they reveal a pattern of lax security that also demands further investigation into this matter).

First, an exploration of the insufficient Secret Service response to these charges, followed by the deplorable NBC NightlyNews segment and then a brief reminder of who controls the Secret Service.

Secret Service Denies Security Lapse

Jack Douglas' follow-up includes the Secret Service's denial of any security breach:

"There were no security lapses at that venue," said Eric Zahren, a
spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington. He added there was "no
deviation" from the "comprehensive and layered" security plan,
implemented in "very close cooperation with our law enforcement
partners."

Zahren rebutted suggestions by several Dallas police
officers at the rally who thought the Secret Service ordered a halt to
the time-consuming weapons check because long lines were moving slowly,
and many seats remained empty as time neared for Obama to appear.

"It was never a part of the plan at this particular venue to have each
and every person in the crowd pass through the Magnetometer," said
Zahren, referring to the device used to detect metal in clothing and
bags.

So basic checks, the kind performed at any major sporting or music event, were never "part of the plan"? If such checks can be carried out for, say, 20,000 people at a Springsteen concert or 50,000 at a Yankee game, why is it too much to expect the same for our nation's leading Democratic presidential candidate?

Douglas goes to report that Zahren "declined to give the reason for checking people for weapons at the
front of the lines and letting those farther back go in without
inspection."

Why?

"We would not want, by providing those details, to have people trying
to derive ways in which they could defeat the security at any
particular venue," Zahren said.

Sure, he wouldn't want to tip off those would-be criminal masterminds to what thousands of people across the country already know: that (at least up until now) arriving late and hanging in the back of the line is the surest way to enter without being checked for a weapon.

The article ends with unique spin from the Dallas police brass:

Lt. V.L. Hale III, a spokesman for the Dallas Police Department, said
in a statement Friday that he would not comment on security measures at
the Obama rally except to say there was no arrest or incident and that
it was a "success from a police standpoint."

So according to Dallas Police Department officials (as opposed to the officers who were shocked and alarmed by the lapse in security), no one actually getting shot or blown up is a "success." Of course, that's not success, but luck.

In Douglas' updated article, he reports on an additional bit of PR spin, provided by a "lawyer and consultant for security concerns," who, unwittingly, seems to confirm a security lapse did indeed occur.

The Secret Service may have been doing all it could at the rally,
said Keith Howse, a lawyer and consultant for security concerns and a
former assistant police chief for the sprawling Baylor Health Care
System.

Howse, who was not at the rally, said the Secret Service
may have been screening the people closest to the candidate while
letting others go in unchecked who were seated far away in the
spacious, 17,000-seat arena.

"It may have ended up not being the
best of all worlds, but it might not have been a flat-out security
breach," he said, adding: "I think it's important to understand that
the Secret Service would not sink below minimum protection" for a
presidential candidate.

Settling for making the possible future President of the United States merely a slightly harder target is an acceptable level of security? Doesn't Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton and John McCain, deserve "the best of all worlds" when it comes to federal protection? (Incidentally, I'd be interested to know if Douglas contacted Howse, or if Howse contacted him unsolicited - and if so, if Howse is working in the capacity of security consultant and council for the Dallas Police Department in this matter, or, possibly, even in that role for the Secret Service in this particular case.)

NBC Nightly News Coverage of the "Alleged" Security Breach

Brian Williams spared 75 seconds for this story on Friday night. He sounded annoyed while framing it for his viewers, his voice betraying an utter lack of curiosity. Williams' handling of this segment displayed the worst of network news: a failure to frame a story with intellectual honesty or to ask and follow up on the most glaringly obvious questions. NBC may have been better off taking its competitors' lead and ignoring this news altogether. Instead, this lame effort turned out to be even more insulting - to its viewers, to the safety of a potential future president, and to journalism in general.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: One more piece of business today, the
Texas newspaper, the Times…the, uh, Star-Telegram has a story today,
among others recently, alleging that at a heavily populated Obama
rally, a Secret Service security check point – magnetometers checking
for potential weapons in peoples bags, laptops, that kind of thing -
was up and then it was taken down. The gist of it was not everybody
attending the rally had been swept for threats. Has this come up and
what’s the response?

LEE COWAN: It has. This was in response to a rally that was in
Dallas on Wednesday, Brian. At that rally, it was said, according to
the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, that those magnotometers were taken down
at about halfway through so they could get people into the event, help
ease some of the long lines outside. The Secret Service, however, said
that is not the case - every event is different, every venue is
different, but that they did not deviate from their original security
plans. That that was not ever part of the plan, and there is no
security risk whatsoever.

As Cowan delivered this
last line, he demonstratively waved his hand downward, consciously or
not, dramatizing the Secret Service's message: Nothing to see here,
folks. Keep moving.

And Williams' probing follow-up?

BRIAN WILLIAMS:
All right. Lee Cowan with the Obama campaign in Corpus Christi, which
will rap up our political coverage for tonight.

Excellent
work. No mention of the Dallas police officers on the security detail,
whose eyewitness accounts not only run counter to Secret Service spin
but were downright chilling in their fearfulness and incredulity. No
questioning of the Secret Service's stated logic to check just some of
the crowd at the rally while allowing thousands to stream in without even
a cursory search. Why didn't Cowan simply read the Secret Service press
release rather than playacting as if this were a news report? What a feckless charade.

Another thing this inept report failed to note was that people
around the country are coming forward with accounts of similar security
breaches at other Obama rallies. Their experiences have yet to be
verified, but journalists should be following up on them - interviewing these people, seeing what they say and going back to law
enforcement officials in the cities where these other rallies occurred
to corroborate their stories.

This is journalism 101, folks. Just as we should expect the most
basic security protection for our presidential candidates, we should
also expect at least a minimal exploration into what the hell is
happening when that security is not provided.

Entrenched Incompetence Is Entrenched Incompetence

It's important to remember that the Secret Service is not some
agency operating separately from the administration that George W. Bush
and Dick Cheney are still running.

In fact, on March 1, 2003, this administration officially made the
U.S. Secret Service part of the United States Department of Homeland
Security. (You might have heard of that crack federal department, the
same one
that seven years after 9/11 still can't ensure our airline cargo
is checked.) Before that change, since its inception in 1865, the
Secret Service had been part of the United States Department of
Treasury, operating as a distinct organization within that department
beginning in 1883. So what's your guess? That Secret Service improved
or worsened under this administration after it was subsumed by the
Department of Homeland Security? I would take odds on the latter, but I'm not a betting man.

So here's the bottom line: without detailing all of this
administration's constitutional law-breaking (torture, secret prisons,
wiretapping, etc.), its long record of criminal negligence alone - from
the security breakdown on 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq ("You go with
the army you have, not the army you want") to Katrina ("Heckuva job,
Brownie!") to the recently revealed diseased beef supply - is reason enough to be deeply troubled by Secret Service claims that its
protection is sufficient when only some participants at
presidential candidate events are being checked for weapons.

Clearly something is not quite right here. Hopefully enough light
will shine on this matter before a preventable tragedy occurs as a
consequence of our media, our leaders and our citizens paying too
little attention.

One last thing: We don't need conspiracy theories to muddy this
picture. They would only result in making people take this viable security concern
less seriously. We need to get to the bottom of this now. We have plenty of facts to go on already. And as the subhead says above: entrenched incompetence is entrenched
incompetence. This administration's pitiful record of protecting its
own citizens and innocent people around the world should make us all
concerned that these are the same people charged with safeguarding someone who's as big a target as Barack Obama.

UPDATE:Mimicking the extraordinary cognitive dissonance of Friday's Associated Press article, The New York Times today published a 1,314-word story titled "In Painful Past, Hushed Worry About Obama," in which it discusses people's fears of his assassination but manages to omit any mention of the reported security lapse during Obama's rally in Dallas last Wednesday (or any eyewitness accounts of similar lax security at Obama events across the country). Not. One. Word. Very strange. There's simply no excuse for this.

Danny Defenbaugh, former head of the FBI in Dallas who was in charge
of the agency's investigation of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing,
questioned why guards would suddenly stop searching for weapons at the
front gates of a place like Reunion Arena, with a presidential
candidate about to walk on stage.

"Why were they doing it in the
first place," said Defenbaugh, now a security consultant, adding that
"of course" the screening for weapons should have continued.

At
Wednesday's rally, several Dallas police officers who were uneasy about
the change in security said they thought it was made to speed up the
long lines of people. The Secret Service has since said that was not a
consideration.

There is no good reason to change procedures during an event, Defenbaugh said.

"If
you change your security procedures, someone's going to have to
justify, if there is an incident, that that change was proper," he said.

The article actually leads with Obama saying his personal safety on the campaign trail is not a focus for him. And can you blame him? Imagine going from venue to venue, making speeches before massive crowds, with your opponent and the media ready to pounce on every word you say. There's just no way to be effective while carrying around such fears. And he shouldn't have to, anyway: it's the Secret Service's job to protect him.

As for the Secret Service's performance, Obama praises them in the piece, calling them "the best in the business" and the detail assigned to him "outstanding," adding, "I can't say enough about them and how much I appreciate the work that they've done."

Now ask yourself this: Wouldn't you say the same if you were in his shoes? How does it benefit Obama's safety in anyway to knock those protecting him? It doesn't. There is nothing Obama himself can do. It must come from others, making sure all that can be done, is being done.

Comments

This story sends chills up my spine. I had no idea the Secret Service is now under the auspices of the bungling, incompetent, and inept Dept. of Homeland Security. If that isn't enough to scare the bejeebers out of the American public I don't know what is.

Seems like the mainstream media is back to its old trick of doing the "easy" news and staying away from anything that might require tough, invetigative journalism.

Other than forward your excellent piece to ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN (forget Fox, they're a sad joke) what can we citizens do to demand an investigation of this? Think Homeland Security gives a rat's patootie about Obama's safety? Harrr!

I am keen to know if this egregious lapse of security has happened at Clinton or McCain events. My guess would be "no."

I got to the rally on the steps of the Capitol in Austin at about 6:30 Friday night. Obama was scheduled to get there at 9. There was already a line, but it was moving well. There were 4 of 5 lines with TSA people screening everyone. About 8:30 or 8:45 there were still huge lines to get into the area (outside, with barricades and police monitoring the access points). They shut down the access at about 8:50 and moved the waiting crowd into the streets outside the barriers. I don't know what more they could have done. The overflow was in the streets, but could not possibly have access to Obama.

Pictures on the Austin American-Statesman the next day showed people literally reaching out and touching Obama's face. I have never seen this kind of passion for a candidate, and I am far from being young. How do you turn away thousands of supporters?

It seemed that the Secret Service is now aware of the attention this problem has gotten. These crowds are so very large, and the affection of the supporters is so demonstrative.

We must all be aware of our surroundings. Fear is not a response that the Obama campaign encourages. Let's watch them and help them keep Obama safe.

I'm extremely disturbed both by the security breach iself (and doubtless more like it) and the faux news media's Machiavellian efforts to make this story disappear.That said, nothing these Pravda enablers do surprises me in the least. My real worry is that Bush-Cheney et al has on on plan in place to see rhat on on certain asassination occurs that will give them cover to finally institute the martial law they've so ardently been salivating for, and for which all of the detention camps will be used once the inevitable civil unrest happens. You heard it here first.

My wife went to the Hillary Clinton rally in Lyndhurst, Ohio, and she says that they checked all the people going into the main room but just waved in the people, like her, who ended up in the overflow area. Seems they don't like much security for either of the Dem candidates.

no, it's not true at yankee stadium, either. their security consists of no large bags, put what you have in a clear plastic bag they give you (eg food you brought w you), and go on in. there are some handheld bomb wands, but i think that's more about spot checks and weirdos than it is scanning everyone.

on the one hand, i feel like the SS might have some sort of security process we don't even know about for which the metal detector delay is a convenient distraction, which might explain why they can say no breach occurred. on the other, if there was any administration that would secretly put the word out that maybe a certain candidate on the campaign trail didn't merit the most stringent procedures, and ps have you seen this forward about how he's an America-hating Islamic sleeper agent, it's this one.

"So according to Dallas Police Department officials (as opposed to the officers who were shocked and alarmed by the lapse in security), no one actually getting shot or blown up is a "success." Of course, that's not success, but luck."

hey, it works for bushco when they congratulate themselves on there being no terrorist attacks in this country.

It may not be true at Yankee Stadium, but every single fan at American Airlines Center in Dallas, where the Mavericks and Stars play and the replacement for Reunion Arena, goes through a metal detector.

FYI: The reference to "basic checks, the kind performed at any major sporting or music event" was not intended to just mean metal detectors, of which several stadiums/arenas do use, handheld or otherwise. (The last time I went to Yankee Stadium, people were routinely "wanded.")

Please see the original post (first link in this post), to which this was a follow-up and you'll understand what I meant by "basic checks": it's not merely that SS didn't use metal detectors on them but that THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE STREAMED IN COMPLETELY UNCHECKED - they just opened the floodgates; no bags, no nothing was checked; people flowed right in off the damn street. (Incidentally, aside from handheld metal detectors/wands, security at Yankee stadium noted by commenter dj is much more stringent than "no large bags, put what you have in a clear plastic bag they give you (eg food you brought w you), and go on in"; of the little you are allowed to bring in, which includes (as noted on their website) "Diaper bags, small children's backpacks, small women's purses & backpack purses" - all of it "will be inspected at the entrance gates." What can't you bring in? "No backpacks, briefcases, attaché cases, coolers, glass or plastic bottles, cans, large purses, bags or video cameras will be permitted into the ballpark. You must leave these items in your vehicle before entering the ballpark. No laptops are permitted into the stadium." All and any of which were permitted at the Obama rally once checks were halted.

Here's the great part for the Republicans- If anything does happen to Obama, the right-wing blogosphere is going to light up in claims that this is just one more murder committed by those horrible Clintons. What would that bring the number to now? 57 or 58?

I do know that at college football stadiums, where about 100k people show up (not counting people working the concession stands or janitorial staff, etc.), they do, at least, a cursory check of all bags before you can enter. You know it is something you'll have to go through, and there are lots of entry ways, and who knows how well those who do the checks are trained (they are only looking to make sure you don't bring in an umbrella or your own food/drink, rather than guns or bombs, so not much is necessary), but they do check everyone's bags.

If you can do it for a college football game, you should be able to do a little more for presidential candidates.

I have no problem with your entire article, from the assertions to the facts. Except this one thing:

"...no one actually getting shot or blown up is a "success." Of course, that's not success, but luck."

Sometimes success is nothing MORE than luck. This in no way disregards the general theme of your post here--that SS security is shockingly lax.

But no one got shot or arrested. That IS a successful example of security, whether by luck or not.

A determined assassin will be successful no matter how good the security is. You may as well infer that dumb luck is the reason America hasn't been 'attacked' since 9-11. The truth is: Nobody cares what the real reason is. It is a 'success', even if any cluck terrorist with an 18-wheeler could 'attack America' any time he wanted to...

Just another data point: big (18,000+) Obama rally in Seattle couple weeks ago -- they had full security for the people sitting in the lower seats, but no security at all for people in the cheap seats, which honestly, aren't that much further away from the stage.

The Dept of Homeland Security isn't just bumbling and inept it's also corrupt. Take a look at every action the DHS has taken - from hunting down missing Democratic legislators on down - it is a govt organization that is doing one thing : Keeping things secure for the party in power.
Now take into account what happened to Bhutto. It just wasn't lax security force, I'd say it's a complicit SS force that did just what those in power wanted to see happen. It happened to Aquino in the Philippines.It's happened far too many times around the world - and it just might be what's in store here.
Wake up people.
(oh yes, I'm obviously one of those "conspiracy theorists" or whatever discrediting term you want to throw out)

This is a very disturbing article. I hadn't heard anything of this. And yes, if such a thing had happened for a G.W Bush event and there were reports of shoddy crowd screening, do we not think the Internets and the MSM would have LIT UP with outrage?

And Daddy-O, the non-death of anyone at a rally at which Secret Service screening is mediocre is just dumb luck. Again, like Chris Rock said, talking about some members of the black community (but this could apply to anyone) with low expectations: "They love to say 'I ain't never been to jail.' What, ya want a cookie? 'I take care of my kids.' You're supposed to take care of your kids."

If the Secret Service is proud nothing happened, just how will it feel if and when something does? It's obvious that something not happening is not largely because of them. Talk about lowering the bar.